As has been discussed previously, we're talking a world-wide rise in sea-level of 5.5 *MILES*. K? Who knows where it came from, or where it went, let's just say it was magical space water from the 5th dimension. Right.

Now, obviously Noah & his kin are going to be floating around on TOP of the water rather than underneath it.

So here's the problem. All that water is compressing world-wide air pressure to unsurvivable levels. The air is trapped and then insanely condensed between the stratosphere (is it the stratosphere I'm thinking of?) and this new 5.5 MILES taller sea level... Am I wrong, or would this not flatten Noah & his little wooden boat into splinters?

I fell into this trap and was corrected by a Physics 101 lesson from Pianodwarf...

Quote

Assuming of course that they somehow managed to get around the fact that they're FLOATING AT THE HEIGHT OF MT. EVEREST... Did they have the foresight to pack life-saving oxygen tanks for Noah and family? Did they have giant ones for the elephants and little baby ones for the 22,000 species of flies?

Because it's very, VERY easy to straight up die at the top of Mt. Everest for lack of oxygen. And cold. That applies to humans... I'd imagine moreso for things that require more oxygen, like big ol' Hippo lungs. And how did all the cold blooded critters survive the -20' temperatures?

...including that bit...

Heh. I remember that. I remember how amused I was that you had found one of the very few arguments that can't be made against the flood myth. *chuckle*

Oh yeah? Oh YEAH? Well... That's why I asked! So there!

I was pretty sure about the second part though, involving the temperature and oxygen reduction. I'm off base huh? Could you guys point me to the trufiness that will set me straight? I'd appreciate it.

Gee, I do so hate being wrong. That sucks. But it's okay. It just demonstrates that I am, in fact, merely human, despite my various super human qualities and other-worldly aura of wickedly gnarly and tubular bodaciousness.

BUT! There'd still be no oxygen regardless of what height they were at. You know, considering all the oxygen-producing trees were drowned and the entirety of the Earth's soil was sown with salt so that nothing should have grown for who knows how long.

Err... I'm not wrong about that part, too, am I? That the big leafy green guys are the things that put the invisible breathing juice in my face hole? I'm pretty sure I'm on point with that one. Correct me if I'm wrong of course. Maybe I'm on a roll of suck or something.

FLOATING AT THE HEIGHT OF MT. EVEREST... Did they have the foresight to pack life-saving oxygen tanks for Noah and family?

Unfortunately, altitude would not be a problem for them because all the air would be pushed up with the rising water. This means they would be experiencing air pressure at sea-level. The only difference would be the same amount of atmosphere spread over the increased surface area of the earth resulting in a slightly lower pressure.

But you're absolutely right about what 5 miles of water pressing overhead before it fell would do. Yikes!

BUT! There'd still be no oxygen regardless of what height they were at. You know, considering all the oxygen-producing trees were drowned and the entirety of the Earth's soil was sown with salt so that nothing should have grown for who knows how long.

Err... I'm not wrong about that part, too, am I? That the big leafy green guys are the things that put the invisible breathing juice in my face hole? I'm pretty sure I'm on point with that one. Correct me if I'm wrong of course. Maybe I'm on a roll of suck or something.

There would be no oxygen being produced, but there would still be all the oxygen in the atmosphere that was already there. Would it be enough to last for over a year for everyone on the Ark? I don't know offhand, and I'm not really concerned to try to calculate it, considering how many other ways there are to refute the flood myth.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Unfortunately, altitude would not be a problem for them because all the air would be pushed up with the rising water. This means they would be experiencing air pressure at sea-level. The only difference would be the same amount of atmosphere spread over the increased surface area of the earth resulting in a slightly lower pressure.

Wouldn't it be the same amount of atmosphere over a decreased surface area? This would result in a much higher air pressure, and possibly crush the ark.

Unfortunately, altitude would not be a problem for them because all the air would be pushed up with the rising water. This means they would be experiencing air pressure at sea-level. The only difference would be the same amount of atmosphere spread over the increased surface area of the earth resulting in a slightly lower pressure.

Wouldn't it be the same amount of atmosphere over a decreased surface area? This would result in a much higher air pressure, and possibly crush the ark.

No, if you increase the radius of a sphere, you increase its surface area as well. That being the case, the atmospheric pressure would drop. However, inasmuch as the earth's radius is already about 3,950 miles, I doubt that adding five more miles to that would affect atmospheric pressure in any significant way. I could do the math, but it's more trouble than it's worth, really.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

It is possible that the biblical narrative about the flood may in fact lend itself to hyberole? Within the story itself (Gen 7:20, I believe), we read that the waters, if one converts cubits to feet, were said to have risen to a height of around 23 to 27 feet. That's hardly high enough to cover Mt. Olympus, I mean Everest. Considering that the Sumerians and others all share similar flood stories, I would not call someone foolish that believed that there was a great, LOCALIZED Meditterainian (I refuse to spell check, got a problem with that?!?!) flood.

The verses read

Quote

18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.

or a variant

Quote

18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose more than fifteen cubits, and the mountains were covered.

Either way, the mountains were supposedly covered. Is this hyperbole? Well, is having a man die and come back to life hyperbole? It comes down to the usual theist attempts to declare what is inconvenient metaphor and what they want to believe as literal.

Many civilizations have flood stories, because floods are common on rivers and civilizations seem to have grew up around them. It’s an easy thing to assign to your god when wanting to explain evil and try to excuse your god for failing on not having any. We also have various civilizations who dont’ have a claim of a great flood as a way to wipe out humanity. There are hypotheses that say that a massive local flood could have been the origin of the Noah myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory and moer on outburst floods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outburst_flood ) but that’s all they are. It could well be the originating story but no guarantee.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

I live in pretty high ground in Florida, the last flood that reached my area was in the mid 1980's, and it had nothing to do with a river or the ocean[1] that surrounds much of Florida it had to do with the fact that it rained non-stop for about two weeks.

Not mentioning this in argument of anything; this topic just reminded me of that. It's really the only flood that I've experienced in my life.

Bible stories are, of course, not meant to be taken literally, but are simple anecdotes from which life lessons can be learned.Anyone can see that the Noah's Ark story is a warning of what can happen when a man, with too much time on his hands, is given a set of power tools and a Home Depot credit card.

Logged

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

So here's the problem. All that water is compressing world-wide air pressure to unsurvivable levels. The air is trapped and then insanely condensced between the stratosphere (is it the stratosphere I'm thinking of?) and this new 5.5 MILES taller sea level... Am I wrong, or would this not flatten Noah & his little wooden boat into splinters?

You are wrong. But don't be sad. This is an opportunity to learn something new!

Ambient air pressure could not crush a boat. You need a pressure differential to do that. You see sumbarine movies or the Abyss where submarines are crushed by water pressure because the pressure outside the boat is vastly larger than the pressure inside. Pressure x area = force. So if you have high pressure on one side of a wall, and low pressure on the other side, the pressures are applied over the same surface area and results in a difference in force, which the walls will resist based on materials and structure.

However, the human body - and those of many animals - evolved[1] to live within a narrow band of pressure ranges. Bad things happen when we go outside them. Gasses dissolve in our blood stream that do not at standard atmospheric pressure (1 atmosphere or 1 atm). If the pressure drops before those gasses are exchanged, they can bubble out, just like carbonation in soda. Divers know this as the bends. But, if the decompression is slow enough, they should be fine.

Because it's very, VERY easy to straight up die at the top of Mt. Everest for lack of oxygen.

That is because of the volume of air around the planet, not some trait inherent to Mt Everest. IF the planet somehow had 5 miles of water dumped on it, you correctly point out that the atmosphere would also be shifted. There would be air, but it would be denser (at a higher pressure) and the atmosphere would be more shallow.

And cold. That applies to humans... I'd imagine moreso for things that require more oxygen, like big ol' Hippo lungs. And how did all the cold blooded critters survive the -20' temperatures?

Would not happen either. Mountain tops are cold because the air pressure is lower. Not because Mt Everest is inherently cold. As above, if the flood fills up to the top of it, then the atmosphere moves up there too. And if you are correct that the pressure would increase, then cold is the opposite of what would happen.

When you compress gasses, they heat up proportionate to the change in volume. It is the ideal gas law:

PV=mRT

P is pressure, V is volume and m is mass, R is a constant and T is temperature. (Not to be confused with Mr T)If I weren't lazy, I'd work through the equations and tell you by how much. But it requires me dusting off calculus and physics equations I've not used in nigh 20 years. Intuitively, I'd guess it would be a lot. The atmosphere could be like 300 degrees F. So staying warm would not really be the problem. Avoiding the flash point of wood would be high on the priority list as would making sure there was enough BBQ sauce on the hippos.

Planets for Man by Isaac Asimov was based on a RAND study. It said that there is a village in the Andes 17,500 feet altitude which is 50% air pressure. That also means these people have adapted one way or the other to living with half as much oxygen as we do.

Assuming someone so adapted was breathing pure oxygen they could survive at 10% pressure. That would be at 53,000 feet altitude.

The boiling point of water drops to 98° at 63,000 ft altitude where the air pressure is 8%.

When decompressing to get the nitrogen out of the blood stream, divers stop and wait at 30 feet down. Water pressure in the sea increases by 1 atmosphere every 33 feet.

So humans can live on normal air from 50% to 200% air pressure.

The Asimov popularization is out of print. The original 1964 study is still available:

Bible stories are, of course, not meant to be taken literally, but are simple anecdotes from which life lessons can be learned.Anyone can see that the Noah's Ark story is a warning of what can happen when a man, with too much time on his hands, is given a set of power tools and a Home Depot credit card.

I don't know who the idiot was who said you can't take the Bible literally. Do it at your own peril I guess.

I remember back in the late 60's or 70'a when scientists proved that there was a cataclysmic event (some called it the Noahic Deluge) most probably caused by large asteroids hitting the earth resulting in major changes about 4,000 years ago. You guys probably go by Patrick Stewart narrating X men: "every millennium or so"...

Yawn, that was what you needed to believe then.

Thank God the Bible doesn't change.

Logged

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I remember back in the late 60's or 70'a when scientists proved that there was a cataclysmic event (some called it the Noahic Deluge) most probably caused by large asteroids hitting the earth resulting in major changes about 4,000 years ago.

What event was that? Cause there is no event that happened on the scale your implying 4,000 years ago.

Indeedy. Yahweh's attitude to slavery, for example, has NEVER changed. Every word, every commandment that the servants of Yahweh followed in the days of Moses is still 100% the same today. I guess that was "what they needed to believe then".

I don't know who the idiot was who said you can't take the Bible literally. Do it at your own peril I guess. I remember back in the late 60's or 70'a when scientists proved that there was a cataclysmic event (some called it the Noahic Deluge) most probably caused by large asteroids hitting the earth resulting in major changes about 4,000 years ago. You guys probably go by Patrick Stewart narrating X men: "every millennium or so"...

How sad to see more lies. No, no scientists poroved this at all or even claimed such a thing as far as I can find out.

Quote

Yawn, that was what you needed to believe then. Thank God the Bible doesn't change.

Really, then you still kill homosexuals, those who break the sabbath, obey any leader since God obviously put them in their place of power, etc?

Such nonsense, jtp. Tsk, tsk.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

I don't know who the idiot was[1]who said you can't take the Bible literally. Do it at your own peril I guess.[2]

I remember back in the late 60's or 70'a when scientists proved[3]that there was a cataclysmic event (some called it the Noahic Deluge) most probably caused by large asteroids hitting the earth resulting in major changes about 4,000 years ago.[4] You guys probably go by Patrick Stewart narrating X men: "every millennium or so"...[5]

I don't know who the idiot was who said you can't take the Bible literally. Do it at your own peril I guess.

First sentence, *SOMEBODY'S* gonna be an idiot! Ooooh you betchya! That's good stuff. I find it always bodes really well for me if I start off by telling everybody who doesn't agree with me that they're mentally deficient. I find it *really* makes them want to hear what I have to say, and not at all think that I'm a needlessly insulting d-bag with an inferiority complex!

Plus a veiled threat at the end! How grand! So we put the whole thing together, and we get

"I don't know who's a big stupid small-brained dummy dum dum that wouldn't believe that animals talk and that plants predate the SUN and that leprosy can be cured by rubbing bird's blood on yourself or that the invisible man in the sky wants to cut off the end of your cock... What a bunch of stoopid dumb-os to not believe that!!! hur hur hur!

But it's okay if you think I'm a blabbering baboon I don't care because you're going to be tortured in millions of wonderful ways when you die and I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE IT HAPPEN! Oohhh yeah... I'm thinking about it now... Ungh.... Ooooh, yeah... Yeah... Yeah... TORTURE that naughty little monkey oh Lawd <gurgle>

Oh, you mean when you took your avatar pic? It's very nice by the way. You're a very fetching man. Nothing presentable from the past 40 years though, huh? That makes you seem a little, I dunno, dishonest. You know, 'cos it's not really YOU anymore. It's who you USED to be. Are you uncomfortable with you you've become?

Ooh!Or were you, like, horribly maimed or mutilated in some kind of industrial accident and now you're, like, all made out of skin grafts n' metal plates and exposed springs n' stuff? That would be SO rad I wouldn't try to hide that at all man I'd be showing the whole world my rockin' mutant/cyborg visage. You could maybe use it to frighten evil-doers n' junk!

Do you still have the beard? 'Cos I'm looking at it and I'm thinking to myself, "You know, I bet *THAT* is where Jesus has been hiding all this time."

when scientists proved that there was a cataclysmic event (some called it the Noahic Deluge) most probably caused by large asteroids hitting the earth resulting in major changes about 4,000 years ago.

It's cute when you guys give "those scientists" maximum credibility and infallibility when you think they support your beliefs, and yet you can be a prison guard with a G.E.D. and still dismiss the findings of THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY simply because they conflict with those same beliefs. Screw their stupid degrees and hundreds of thousands of hours in the lab and in the field, right? I mean, you hose down felons for a living, surely you know more about biology, geology, physics, cosmology, and the like than any stupid old scients. You're armed with a BIBLE after all!

As amusing as that is, I should say it's also a bit insulting that you think simply saying "HERP-A-DERP WELL A SY-IN-TIST *PROVED* IT GUYS LIKE A LONG TIME AGO"

I can see inside your head you know. You're trying to invoke some sort of dogmatic principle you think atheists have where we hear the words "scientist" and "proof" and go "Ohhhhhhh well if it was a SCIENTIST who PROVED it, heck, than I'll totally believe it!"

I dunno. Maybe you do this because you're enough a sucker that similar tactics have worked on you. Maybe when people say "The Bible Says...", you instantly prepare yourself for a hot dose of TRUF!!! So you assume everybody is as gullible.

They're not.

Worthy of note, the manner in which you chose to express yourself demonstrates pretty clearly that you have a rather ugly disrespect for other people's intellectual prowess (it's painfully obvious you think nobody is as smart as you). You seem to also have a really nasty tendency to patronize people, too. Never a good tactic for making headway in a discussion. I'm not trying to be a dick, but we're only 100 words in, and look how unlikeable of a person you've already painted yourself as!

Why? And is this how Jesus says you're supposed to get new recruits? Because I think you need to work on your routine.

But back to your appeal to authority - It's just like your religion - you cherry pick the stuff you like and leave out the stuff you don't. You're building your very own little world of 'facts" in your head, composed of 60+ years of cobwebs infused by religious voodoo and bad pseudo-science, and it's cool that you can play around in that head space and feel good about your grasp on reality, but unfortunately nobody CAN or particularly WANTS to visit that world.

Mainly because it's utterly bogus.

Please provide some sort of evidence for what you just claimed. I'm not talking about some lone crackpot on a theology website who claims to be a geologist.

Find me a single solitary peer-reviewed paper that supports the idea of this "Noahic Flood" and I will consider what you are saying. Believe it or not, secular scientists are out there looking for the CORRECT answers, they're not out there trying to crap on your fables.

I say all this assuming you're trying to insinuate that this "Noahic Deluge" you heard about 40 or 50 years ago is the actual biblical flood as described in the Bible? Because of course, it's possible some geologist back in the 60's or 70's was looking for headlines and decided to throw the word "Noah" onto some NON WORLD ENDING ancient flood evidence they found somewhere in the world...

If they actually found evidence for a worldwide flood (which is a scientific impossiblity for countless reasons), everybody would know about it. They don't, because it never happened.

If it did, it would be taught in every history text book in the world. I mean you're talking about an Extinction Level Event within recorded human history dude. And again, assuming you're suggesting this "Noahic Flood" is the one from the bible, what, just nobody happened to notice they were being wiped out? Because you're claiming it happened at around the same time that the bronze age reached ancient China. Egypt and Nubia went to war. Abraham started Judiasm.

It's about the same time Stonehenge was built.

The world was chock full o' thriving cultures 4,000 years ago. It's strange none of them mentioned the fact that 5.5 miles of water was dropped on them, wiping out their entire civilization and killing everyone. Seems like the kind of thing that's important enough to write down, don't it?

The biblical flood. never. happened. And if you knew that this "Noahic Deluge" was just a headline-grabbing name for a regular ol' flood or Tsunami from 4,000 years ago, it's very disingenious of you to try to spin it like Scientists proved something from the bible by using words like "cataclysmic"(to who? None of the major existing cultures at the time were impacted in any meaningful way) that caused "massive changes" (again, where? What changes? And to whom? NOBODY in recorded history bothered to record it??? Then how cataclysmic could it be?)

What's weird though, is that you seem to have been purposely drawn attention to words like "cataclysmic" and "caused massive changes", while your holy book distinctly says "KILLED ALMOST EVERY LIVING THING ON THE PLANET". How do you connect the dots there? I don't get it.

Again. Bible Flood. Never happened.

Don't take my word for it. Call anybody in the geology department of any U.S. college and ask to speak with the professor. s**t, just take a geology class, man.

Don't get me wrong, it's really impressive that you're referencing the "findings" of (assumably) Christian scientists from 40 or 50 years ago - I can tell you're the kind of guy that really goes out of his way to stay current on the latest scientific discoveries and theories.

But still. Pick up a book once in a decade. You might learn something new and exciting. Or not. You've made it kind of obvious that you buy every stitch of goofiness in the bible hook, line, and sinker and anything that contradicts it is flat out wrong despite how big the mountain of evidence for it is... But ooh, the FEROCITY with which you defend it! My, it gives me the vapors, I do say. You mighty, snuggly Christian Lion, you.

Oh, I forgot to ask... if we WERE talking about the biblical flood... Why didn't the bible mention meteors exactly? That seems like it would be a very visually impressive part of the story and a shame to chop it out. Is it in the director's cut? And did these meteors bring the additional 5.5 miles and untold quadrillion gallons of water with them? Were they giant cosmic water balloons perhaps? Did more meteors come later to take all the extra water away? They must have, since we're not living as merfolk in 2011.

I get the impression that this is supposed to be some kind of insult, but I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Either way, it always feels good to make mass assumptions about people and then proceed to devalue them based on those assumptions, don't it?

I LOVE doing that. Like the other day I saw a bunch of kids standing at the busstop near my house, and I had just the greatest time making fun of them for their height, their stupid clothes, and the fact that none of them had cars. It really made me feel great.

Makes it real easy to dismiss what people have to say if you can get yourself to believe that they're not worthy of listening to, ain't it? So you go, old boy. You demonize /dehumanize the hell out of those filthy atheists! You're really doin' the lawd's work now!

Again, no idea what you're talking about. I needed to believe what when? Patrick Stewart? Back in the 60's/70's? I don't get it. Are you making more assumptions? Because I assure you, you have no idea what I believe or don't, what I did believe or didn't, or what I need. So kindly stop acting like you know me or what I think of Patrick Stewart. It makes my skin crawl.

Nicely done on the "Yawn", by the way. Real classy. Somehow I don't think you actually have the stones to yawn in somebody's face in real life though, do ya? Naaah of course not. You're an old ass man, after all... You're probably soft and fluffy and docile like a house cat. And of course your bones would turn to dust if somebody actually hauled off and slapped you for being rude lol.

But hey if you can hide behind your age, it sure is a great way to be snide without having to be clever! Am I right? Make you feel like the be-bearded stallion of yesteryear, does it, being able to show contempt through bodily functions?

But why yawn? Are we boring you, big boy? You know, you don't *HAVE* to be here. Really. You REALLY don't. I swear. As delightful as your company is, as pleasant your personality, and as profound as your nuggets of inspired wisdom, we'll survive in your abscence. Somehow. So, you know, why don't you go do something exciting like de-linting your shirts or maybe have a nice broccoli-smoothy?

Yep. Otherwise you'd have to step out of the bronze age and accept the fact that bats aren't birds, rabbits don't chew cud, and having your preacher spit in your eyes won't heal your broken down body.

Sure is cozy in that familiar little box, ain't it? Boy, the universe sure is a big scawwy place. I know *I'D* be terrified if I actually had to process new information and work it into my worldview. I'm soooo glad I knew how the universe worked by the time I was 5, as told by 2,000 year old desert goat herders. Never needed to learn nufin' again!

Bullshit. I've read 14 versions, including The Book of Mormon which lifts many verses from the OT and NT and puts it in its collective book[1]. Now, where did I read so many versions: http://biblegateway.com -- and there are more versions there. If the Bible doesn't change: why are there so many versions?

Bullshit. I've read 14 versions, including The Book of Mormon which lifts many verses from the OT and NT and puts it in its collective book[1]. Now, where did I read so many versions: http://biblegateway.com -- and there are more versions there. If the Bible doesn't change: why are there so many versions?

I think he means the one on his coffee table. The one his aunt Elaine got him back in '74. THAT bible doesn't change.

It's good to have dependable literature around the house. The other day I picked up my copy of On The Road and was shocked when Sal Paradise got an office job on page 46 and spent the rest of the book staring out of a window. Can't trust nuthin' to stay the same no mo'.

No, seriously though, that's an excellent point Nam. A new flavor of "revised" bible comes out multiple times a year, and there's already like 38,000 versions... Not to mention however many edits, re-writes, and overhauls the "original" thing experienced for 1,200-1,500 years until the printing press was invented.

When I was in college I read a "modern English version" bible circa 1975, and I did not like it at all. You have to admit the KJV, with its "Verily I spake unto you, so that you might hear and believe"[1] is prettier language than, "I am telling you the truth, no jive, man." Both are fiction, but one is prettier fiction, like Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is prettier language than what Keanu Reeves says in Speed.

The JW bible we read back in the day was somewhere in between the KJV and the modern one. Kinda like how people talked in 1918, cause that is when they wrote the translation.

I would listen to anything if Patrick Stewart said it. And jtp56 is full of jerkismo.

When I was in college I read a "modern English version" bible circa 1975, and I did not like it at all. You have to admit the KJV, with its "Verily I spake unto you, so that you might hear and believe"[1] is prettier language than, "I am telling you the truth, no jive, man." Both are fiction, but one is prettier fiction, like Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is prettier language than what Keanu Reeves says in Speed.

The JW bible we read back in the day was somewhere in between the KJV and the modern one. Kinda like how people talked in 1918, cause that is when they wrote the translation.

I would listen to anything if Patrick Stewart said it. And jtp56 is full of jerkismo.

Okay, first, that is SO weird... I was JUST reading the wiki for "Speed" literally 5 minutes ago. I stepped out for a smoke, came back, and find this post. And I have no idea WHY I was reading about "Speed". I never particularly cared for the movie; haven't seen it 15 years. Was just bored and looking for stuff to read about.

How much more proof do you need that we're, like, cosmically connected n' junk my little turtle dove?

And for the record, I don't know. I like fruity (flowery? whatever) language as much as the next guy, but the 14th century style language of the bible just comes across as archaic and painful to read, to me.

But if I could actually find a bible written by Ron O'Neal... Shit, man, I might convert right then and there.

<cue wah guitars>

"Who's the Jew with the cannibal crew?"

<JE-ZUS!>

"Awwww yeeeah. I said WHO's that Messiah who spits hot FY-YAHHHHH!?"

<JE-ZUS!>

"You bet that azzzzzzzz. He's one Christly mother..."

<SHUT YO MOUTH.>

<cue violins as Jesus slides over the hood of a car..>

AAAHHHHH BY JTP'S MIGHTY BEARD, THE AWESOME!!!!

I'm making this into a movie and I'm going to be a millionaire, ya'll watch. I'm not even joking.

Have you seen the youtube video of the Terminator going back and saving Jesus from the crucifixion? Jesus gets pissed off because the Ahnold drags Judas up and offs him before he can do his pre-ordained betrayal. Hye-larious.

What will religions do when we invent time travel and people go back and see that all this stuff they believe in really did not happen? We can hang around the Xia dynasty in China and enjoy the lack of a great global flood, then pop over to ancient Egypt and see the non-existence of widespread Jewish slavery and release of same. Fast forward over the missing Messiah to the meetings in Rome where the bishops did their cut 'n paste to make the bible. Then we can go back and look for Abraham in ancient Iraq and zip forward to chat with Muhammed and find out what he was smoking in that cave when he had his first "revelation".

Somebody pointed out how unlikely it would be for the all-powerful god to randomly choose a handful of semi-literate misfits to spread his message by word of mouth and stuff written on paper when he could as easily just a) telepathically communicate clearly with everyone on the planet at once, even isolated tribes on remote islands or mountain villages.The best proof that there is no "one true god" speaking to all people is that every group came up with their own different culturally-specific religious/spiritual beliefs, some diametrically opposed to each other.[1].

Speed was the only Keanu Reeves title I could think of, although I wanted to name that one where he and Morgan Freeman almost blew up Chicago.

A new flavor of "revised" bible comes out multiple times a year, and there's already like 38,000 versions... Not to mention however many edits, re-writes, and overhauls the "original" thing experienced for 1,200-1,500 years until the printing press was invented.

I recently came across a cunning re-write of the KJV.

In Exodus 32, God contemplates kiling all the Israelites for worshipping the Golden Calf, and Moses talks him out of it. The KJV says:

9And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people; 10Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 11And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 12Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 13Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

I suppose that at the time of the KJV (1611), people were more comfortable with the idea of God being capable and desirous of committing evil, and with the idea of God repenting (or else they were s**t-scared of asking questions).

But in more modern times, with the advent of the whole God = Love schtick, that passage makes uncomfortable reading, so it had to go.

And it's quite cunning how they did it, with regard to the word 'repent'. They simply changed one letter of it - as if it had been a mere typo!! So the NIV for example reads:

9 “I have seen these people,” the LORD said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.” 11 But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. “LORD,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’”

14 Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.